Religious Right Wing Bigots Still Obsessing About Marriage-Get a Life!

[toobfreak]

But is it really "exclusion"?

The primary point of Marriage is to get the biological father to stick around and provide for his biological children and their biological mother.


Gays have always been a part of that. (Do you need this point supported? Or are you aware?)


Your request wasn't just to let them do that, but to change the institution so that it would fit their sexuality better.

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Tell us again what the rational basis or compelling government/societal interest is in excluding same sex couples from marriage. I think that got buried in all the blather here.

Did you already forget, Dick Gayson? US Code DEFINES marriage as I already showed as one man and one woman. Marriage is understood to be a hetero couple joining in matrimony with ideally, the express goal of hopefully producing offspring to perpetuate the species within a wholesome family unit with a moral upbringing. That leaves you out.

What's the Difference Between Matrimony and Marriage?

Learn it. Live it. Love it.

The Court doesn't give a crap about your definition - Gay Marriage is legal and recognized, and you screaming about definitions is the final throws of a weaselly perspective on minding your own fucking business.

Do try to keep up before you make a total ass of yourself! It isn't "my" definition," sweetheart, it is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S LEGAL DEFINITION. Now go crawl back in that tiny hole you crawled out of!

 

[toobfreak]

But is it really "exclusion"?

The primary point of Marriage is to get the biological father to stick around and provide for his biological children and their biological mother.


Gays have always been a part of that. (Do you need this point supported? Or are you aware?)


Your request wasn't just to let them do that, but to change the institution so that it would fit their sexuality better.

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Tell us again what the rational basis or compelling government/societal interest is in excluding same sex couples from marriage. I think that got buried in all the blather here.

Did you already forget, Dick Gayson? US Code DEFINES marriage as I already showed as one man and one woman. Marriage is understood to be a hetero couple joining in matrimony with ideally, the express goal of hopefully producing offspring to perpetuate the species within a wholesome family unit with a moral upbringing. That leaves you out.

What's the Difference Between Matrimony and Marriage?

Learn it. Live it. Love it.

Is that your substitution for a cogent argument, Gaydo?

 

[G.T.]

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Tell us again what the rational basis or compelling government/societal interest is in excluding same sex couples from marriage. I think that got buried in all the blather here.

Did you already forget, Dick Gayson? US Code DEFINES marriage as I already showed as one man and one woman. Marriage is understood to be a hetero couple joining in matrimony with ideally, the express goal of hopefully producing offspring to perpetuate the species within a wholesome family unit with a moral upbringing. That leaves you out.

What's the Difference Between Matrimony and Marriage?

Learn it. Live it. Love it.

The Court doesn't give a crap about your definition - Gay Marriage is legal and recognized, and you screaming about definitions is the final throws of a weaselly perspective on minding your own fucking business.

Do try to keep up before you make a total ass of yourself! It isn't "my" definition," sweetheart, it is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S LEGAL DEFINITION. Now go crawl back in that tiny hole you crawled out of!

View attachment 271582

The federal gov't recognizes gay marriages, numb nuts...nobody quite gives or ever gave a fuck about you nosey neeners recognizing it at all. My tax dollars recognize it, so - ya lost! Cry bout dattt

Same-sex marriages are now legal across the entirety of the United States after a historic supreme court ruling that declared attempts by conservative states to ban them unconstitutional.

Four liberal justices and Kennedy rejected claims made by lawyers during the legal argument in April that marriage was defined by law solely to encourage procreation within stable family units – and therefore could only meaningfully apply to men and women.

“The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” wrote Kennedy.

“The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex,” he added.

Crucially, the majority ruling argues that the court has frequently exercised jurisdiction over the definition of marriage in previous cases and is not overstepping its constitutional role by intervening now.

“This Court’s cases have expressed constitutional principles of broader reach. In defining the right to marry these cases have identified essential attributes of that right based in history, tradition and other constitutional liberties inherent in this intimate bond,” wrote Kennedy.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Tell us again what the rational basis or compelling government/societal interest is in excluding same sex couples from marriage. I think that got buried in all the blather here.

Did you already forget, Dick Gayson? US Code DEFINES marriage as I already showed as one man and one woman. Marriage is understood to be a hetero couple joining in matrimony with ideally, the express goal of hopefully producing offspring to perpetuate the species within a wholesome family unit with a moral upbringing. That leaves you out.

What's the Difference Between Matrimony and Marriage?

Learn it. Live it. Love it.

Is that your substitution for a cogent argument, Gaydo?

Yea I lowered myself to your level

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.

You lost, get over it, and youre [sic] always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thats [sic] how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.

You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are

No rational concept of freedom or liberty compels sane people to treat an obvious falsehood as truth, or supports government acting to uphold falsehood as truth.

There is no such thing, and can be no such thing, as a marriage between women or between two women. That is not what marriage is, that is not what marriage has ever been, and that is not what marriage ever can or ever will be. “Same-sex marriage” is a falsehood, a lie.

Government can no more make such a fake “marriage” real, than it can cause two plus two to equal ten.

The only thing that is truly accomplished by abusing the power of government to uphold a lie, is to undermine the authority and credibility of that government.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.

You lost, get over it, and youre [sic] always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thats [sic] how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.

You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are

No rational concept of freedom or liberty compels sane people to treat an obvious falsehood as truth, or supports government acting to uphold falsehood as truth.

There is no such thing, and can be no such thing, as a marriage between women or between two women. That is not what marriage is, that is not what marriage has ever been, and that is not what marriage ever can or ever will be. “Same-sex marriage” is a falsehood, a lie.

Government can no more make such a fake “marriage” real, than it can cause two plus two to equal ten.

The only thing that is truly accomplished by abusing the power of government to uphold a lie, is to undermine the authority and credibility of that government.

 

[G.T.]

This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.

You lost, get over it, and youre [sic] always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thats [sic] how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.

You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are

No rational concept of freedom or liberty compels sane people to treat an obvious falsehood as truth, or supports government acting to uphold falsehood as truth.

There is no such thing, and can be no such thing, as a marriage between women or between two women. That is not what marriage is, that is not what marriage has ever been, and that is not what marriage ever can or ever will be. “Same-sex marriage” is a falsehood, a lie.

Government can no more make such a fake “marriage” real, than it can cause two plus two to equal ten.

The only thing that is truly accomplished by abusing the power of government to uphold a lie, is to undermine the authority and credibility of that government.

Thats an assertion, not an argument poindexter. Grow up. Gays arent hurting you.

 

[OldLady]

Correll, I disagree with your opinion that marriage was designed to keep Dads at home. It was so men could legally "own" a woman who bore him heirs. Take the time to read this; it is interesting.

The origins of marriage

How old is the institution?

The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?

Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else

Maybe that's why you're having trouble winning this one--you're starting with a false premise.

Of course, men can't 'own' women anymore, either. At least not here. So whatever the roots of the institution of marriage thousands of years ago, they no longer apply.

 

[toobfreak]

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Tell us again what the rational basis or compelling government/societal interest is in excluding same sex couples from marriage. I think that got buried in all the blather here.

Did you already forget, Dick Gayson? US Code DEFINES marriage as I already showed as one man and one woman. Marriage is understood to be a hetero couple joining in matrimony with ideally, the express goal of hopefully producing offspring to perpetuate the species within a wholesome family unit with a moral upbringing. That leaves you out.

What's the Difference Between Matrimony and Marriage?

Learn it. Live it. Love it.

Is that your substitution for a cogent argument, Gaydo?

Yea I lowered myself to your level

You've never been that high in all your life. Quit hiding behind your schoolyard deflections. Man up and admit the obvious in B&W, if you've got the balls.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Tell us again what the rational basis or compelling government/societal interest is in excluding same sex couples from marriage. I think that got buried in all the blather here.

Did you already forget, Dick Gayson? US Code DEFINES marriage as I already showed as one man and one woman. Marriage is understood to be a hetero couple joining in matrimony with ideally, the express goal of hopefully producing offspring to perpetuate the species within a wholesome family unit with a moral upbringing. That leaves you out.

What's the Difference Between Matrimony and Marriage?

Learn it. Live it. Love it.

Is that your substitution for a cogent argument, Gaydo?

Yea I lowered myself to your level

You've never been that high in all your life. Quit hiding behind your schoolyard deflections. Man up and admit the obvious in B&W, if you've got the balls.

Admit what freakazoid? Your problem is that you think that being gay is something to "admit" as thought it were 1950.
If I were gay I would say so straight up But I won't deny it because doing so would validate your bigotry.

Now maybe you can come up with something relevant and intelligent to say that is on topic, but I doubt it

 

[toobfreak]

Did you already forget, Dick Gayson? US Code DEFINES marriage as I already showed as one man and one woman. Marriage is understood to be a hetero couple joining in matrimony with ideally, the express goal of hopefully producing offspring to perpetuate the species within a wholesome family unit with a moral upbringing. That leaves you out.

What's the Difference Between Matrimony and Marriage?

Learn it. Live it. Love it.

Is that your substitution for a cogent argument, Gaydo?

Yea I lowered myself to your level

You've never been that high in all your life. Quit hiding behind your schoolyard deflections. Man up and admit the obvious in B&W, if you've got the balls.

Admit what freakazoid? Your problem is that you think that being gay is something to "admit" as thought it were 1950.
If I were gay I would say so straight up But I won't deny it because doing so would validate your bigotry.

Now maybe you can come up with something relevant and intelligent to say that is on topic, but I doubt it

You're so gay that is why you're on EVERY gay thread defending homos. Personally, I don't care, I just don't want you too close to me. I don't want you checking out my ass. And whatever you think or any state passes, the federal definition of marriage remains the same. You can have a civil union, but it cannot be true holy matrimony BY DEFINITION, Ace.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Is that your substitution for a cogent argument, Gaydo?

Yea I lowered myself to your level

You've never been that high in all your life. Quit hiding behind your schoolyard deflections. Man up and admit the obvious in B&W, if you've got the balls.

Admit what freakazoid? Your problem is that you think that being gay is something to "admit" as thought it were 1950.
If I were gay I would say so straight up But I won't deny it because doing so would validate your bigotry.

Now maybe you can come up with something relevant and intelligent to say that is on topic, but I doubt it

You're so gay that is why you're on EVERY gay thread defending homos. Personally, I don't care, I just don't want you too close to me. I don't want you checking out my ass. And whatever you think or any state passes, the federal definition of marriage remains the same. You can have a civil union, but it cannot be true holy matrimony BY DEFINITION, Ace.

Holy matrimony ??

 

[toobfreak]

Is that your substitution for a cogent argument, Gaydo?

Yea I lowered myself to your level

You've never been that high in all your life. Quit hiding behind your schoolyard deflections. Man up and admit the obvious in B&W, if you've got the balls.

Admit what freakazoid? Your problem is that you think that being gay is something to "admit" as thought it were 1950.
If I were gay I would say so straight up But I won't deny it because doing so would validate your bigotry.

Now maybe you can come up with something relevant and intelligent to say that is on topic, but I doubt it

You're so gay that is why you're on EVERY gay thread defending homos. Personally, I don't care, I just don't want you too close to me. I don't want you checking out my ass. And whatever you think or any state passes, the federal definition of marriage remains the same. You can have a civil union, but it cannot be true holy matrimony BY DEFINITION, Ace.

Holy matrimony ??

Thanks for showing your ignorance and that you don't even read. ALL matrimony was considered holy until just a few years ago when leftfucks like you went in and tried to write new laws overwriting that so you could justify fudge-packing as a legitimate social norm rather than as the state of depravity and perversion it really is.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yea I lowered myself to your level

You've never been that high in all your life. Quit hiding behind your schoolyard deflections. Man up and admit the obvious in B&W, if you've got the balls.

Admit what freakazoid? Your problem is that you think that being gay is something to "admit" as thought it were 1950.
If I were gay I would say so straight up But I won't deny it because doing so would validate your bigotry.

Now maybe you can come up with something relevant and intelligent to say that is on topic, but I doubt it

You're so gay that is why you're on EVERY gay thread defending homos. Personally, I don't care, I just don't want you too close to me. I don't want you checking out my ass. And whatever you think or any state passes, the federal definition of marriage remains the same. You can have a civil union, but it cannot be true holy matrimony BY DEFINITION, Ace.

Holy matrimony ??

Thanks for showing your ignorance and that you don't even read. ALL matrimony was considered holy until just a few years ago when leftfucks like you went in and tried to write new laws overwriting that so you could justify fudge-packing as a legitimate social norm rather than as the state of depravity and perversion it really is.

A few years ago??

 

[Correll]

Nope. I'm just not going to let you have your conclusion, ie that tradition marriage is discrimination, as the premise.

Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM is the definition of discrimination.
....l.

But is it really "exclusion"?

The primary point of Marriage is to get the biological father to stick around and provide for his biological children and their biological mother.


Gays have always been a part of that. (Do you need this point supported? Or are you aware?)


Your request wasn't just to let them do that, but to change the institution so that it would fit their sexuality better.

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Tell us again what the rational basis or compelling government/societal interest is in excluding same sex couples from marriage. I think that got buried in all the blather here.

ANd that is the crux of the matter. YOu libs insist on being able to define the debate, with your conclusion as the premise.


You are cheaters.

 

[Correll]

Nope. I'm just not going to let you have your conclusion, ie that tradition marriage is discrimination, as the premise.

Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM is the definition of discrimination.
....l.

But is it really "exclusion"?

The primary point of Marriage is to get the biological father to stick around and provide for his biological children and their biological mother.


Gays have always been a part of that. (Do you need this point supported? Or are you aware?)


Your request wasn't just to let them do that, but to change the institution so that it would fit their sexuality better.

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Marriage is not merely about fatherhood, Correll, let-alone does how *you define marriage.. and what it was about... make it a necessity that said definition is permanent. You've conceded this like 10 or so posts ago, when you said that society is free to revisit institutions.

....

But it was revisited on the false premise of your conclusion.


That is a not a honest and serious discussion of the issue.


That was a cheat, and you people being bullies and tyrants.

 

[Correll]

But is it really "exclusion"?

The primary point of Marriage is to get the biological father to stick around and provide for his biological children and their biological mother.


Gays have always been a part of that. (Do you need this point supported? Or are you aware?)


Your request wasn't just to let them do that, but to change the institution so that it would fit their sexuality better.

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Tell us again what the rational basis or compelling government/societal interest is in excluding same sex couples from marriage. I think that got buried in all the blather here.

Did you already forget, Dick Gayson? US Code DEFINES marriage as I already showed as one man and one woman. Marriage is understood to be a hetero couple joining in matrimony with ideally, the express goal of hopefully producing offspring to perpetuate the species within a wholesome family unit with a moral upbringing. That leaves you out.

What's the Difference Between Matrimony and Marriage?

Learn it. Live it. Love it.

And thus we see the end of the idea of government by consensus and the rise of rule by force.


You don't agree with the agenda? Well, then you are bigot, and you can fuck off.


Soon, such hate speech will result in jail time. Won't it Prog?


Great future you're building.

 

[G.T.]

Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM is the definition of discrimination.
....l.

But is it really "exclusion"?

The primary point of Marriage is to get the biological father to stick around and provide for his biological children and their biological mother.


Gays have always been a part of that. (Do you need this point supported? Or are you aware?)


Your request wasn't just to let them do that, but to change the institution so that it would fit their sexuality better.

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Marriage is not merely about fatherhood, Correll, let-alone does how *you define marriage.. and what it was about... make it a necessity that said definition is permanent. You've conceded this like 10 or so posts ago, when you said that society is free to revisit institutions.

....

But it was revisited on the false premise of your conclusion.


That is a not a honest and serious discussion of the issue.


That was a cheat, and you people being bullies and tyrants.

You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.

Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You're so gay that is why you're on EVERY gay thread defending homos. Personally, I don't care, I just don't want you too close to me. I don't want you checking out my ass. And whatever you think or any state passes, the federal definition of marriage remains the same. You can have a civil union, but it cannot be true holy matrimony BY DEFINITION, Ace.

Holy matrimony ??

Thanks for showing your ignorance and that you don't even read. ALL matrimony was considered holy until just a few years ago when leftfucks like you went in and tried to write new laws overwriting that so you could justify fudge-packing as a legitimate social norm rather than as the state of depravity and perversion it really is.

Matthew 7:6…

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.​

 

[Correll]

Correll, I disagree with your opinion that marriage was designed to keep Dads at home. It was so men could legally "own" a woman who bore him heirs. Take the time to read this; it is interesting.

The origins of marriage

How old is the institution?

The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?

Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else

Maybe that's why you're having trouble winning this one--you're starting with a false premise.

Of course, men can't 'own' women anymore, either. At least not here. So whatever the roots of the institution of marriage thousands of years ago, they no longer apply.

1. How free or equal were the women in those communal groups?

2. How well were the children cared for? When no one knew who the fathers were?